Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Probability interpretation of QM

  1. May 30, 2008 #1
    What proof is there that Born's probability interpretation of the QM wavefunction is correct? Born published two papers in 1926 that supposedly shed light on this subject. Does anyone know where I can find english translated versions of these works?

    Does anyone know of any accessible research papers that demonstrate proof of the probability interpretation?

    I know that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would indicate that probability is an important part of QM, but has anyone used it to show that Born's interpretation is correct?

    Also, are there any research papers about how experimentation has shown Schrodinger's interpretation of the wavefunction is incorrect? He thought that it represented a continuous electric charge density distribution. According to Born, measurements using Geiger counters and wilson cloud chambers prove that Schrod's interpretation is clearly wrong. How can I learn about this? Do you know of any papers on the subject?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 30, 2008 #2
    I don't know about experimental refutations of Schroedinger's interpretation; but I do know that Lorentz published a paper showing that if particles didn't exist as Sch. claimed, then that the waves of his theory would undergo dispersion and we wouldn't observe localised entities in nature.
    Strictly speaking, you can't prove that Born's interpretation is the correct one compared to any other that makes identical predictions (like Everett or de Broglie-Bohm). (Strictly speaking in fact one cannot prove anything in science; one can only try to disprove it and fail repeatedly.) His interpretation was hailed as such a success because it was the first interpretation that correctly predicted the results of experiments- to incredible accuracy, one might add. The Everett interpretation (or interpretations of his interpretation) makes identical predictions, and is the second most widely held amongst physicists; if Born's version could be proved no-one would believe anything else.
     
  4. May 30, 2008 #3
    The Born rule just says that the complex conjugate of the wavefunction is the probability density function. The proof of this is demonstrated constantly in double slit or countless other quantum experiments.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Probability interpretation of QM
  1. QM Interpretations (Replies: 17)

  2. QM Interpretations (Replies: 101)

  3. Interpretations of QM (Replies: 7)

  4. QM Interpretations (Replies: 27)

Loading...